From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15877 invoked by alias); 18 May 2002 18:06:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15854 invoked by uid 71); 18 May 2002 18:06:01 -0000 Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 11:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020518180601.15851.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "R. Bernstein" Subject: Re: middle-end/6694: Warning that largest negative int -2147483648 in comparison is unsigned Reply-To: "R. Bernstein" X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR middle-end/6694; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "R. Bernstein" To: sirl@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, rocky@panix.com, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: middle-end/6694: Warning that largest negative int -2147483648 in comparison is unsigned Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 14:03:58 -0400 > State-Changed-Why: > Not a bug. There are no negative constants in C. > The constant overflows 'int' (thus the warning) and then the negation is applied as an operation. I think there would be less confusion then if the warning message were changed to warning: positive decimal constant is so large that it is unsigned ^^^^^^^ Or even better warning: positive decimal constant 2147483648 is so large that it is unsigned (where 2147483648 is of course substituted in from the offending value).